DATE OF DISPOSAL: 06.06.2023.

SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT: 

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainants have filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against  the Opposite Party (in short O.P.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Commission. 

2. The fact of the case as averred by the complainant is that when her Scooty Pep Regn. No. OR-07K-4838 stopped functioning in the month of September 2021, she approached to a Private Service centre Maa Santoshi Auto garage the OP.  To repair the said Scooty, the O.P. demanded advance amounting of Rs.4000/-. The complainant agrees his proposal. After few days again the OP demanded money amounting of Rs.3500/- to purchase new part piston kit. But the complainant instead of paid the amount, she directly purchased the piston kit for Rs.1593/-. When the O.P. checked the said piston, he rejected the kit and told that it is not the right kit for the Scooty. For verification and confirmation the genuineness of the said piston kit part, the complainant approached the Padmalaya Motors Giri Road? After few days when the complainant went to collect her Scooty, the O.P. again asked to purchase another part with engine oil. The OP has handed over the Scooty to the complainant after two days by correcting little bit but not completely and the Scooty was started on self. For the said repair, the complainant paid total sum of Rs.3420/- to the OP. Next day, again same starting problem prevailed. For the above deficient services provided by the OP, the complainant filed this case and sought relief that, the complainant is suffering mentally and physically so the OP should repair the Scooty correctly.

3. Admitted the case and issue notice to the OP. Duly acknowledging the notice, the OP in person appeared before the Commission but did not file any written version. Thereafter, the Ld. Counsel for the OP appeared but the OP did not turn up and the Commission set the OP exparte on 11.05.2022.

4. But the O.P. filed version through his advocate. It is stated that he is the owner of the Maa Santoshi garage, Lanjipali, Berhampur.  The complainant had not mentioned the date and time when the complainant brought the Scooty pep for service and also she has not mentioned the day when the O.P. asked Rs.4000/- for repairing and also do not known when the complainant has given the kit to him for repairing. The complainant has not mentioned when I told her for right kit and again she has not mentioned the day when she has given the right kit. The O.P. never kept for vehicle for repairing or never asked anything. The fact stated in the complaint petition is all not true. But on humanitarian ground if the complainant requested to repair the vehicle, he is ready to help her by repairing the vehicle and prayed to dispose of the case.

            5. On the date of hearing complainant is present.  The complainant filed an objection to the written version of the OP. Wherein she contended that, she paid the demanded amount of Rs.3420/- to the OP but did not repaired her Scooty properly. In such event she handed over the said Scooty to one Alekha Mahima Bike Centre situated at Sidhartha Nagar Sqaure, Bhabinipur Main Road, Brahmapur to repair the same. The said Bike Centre repaired the Scooty and for such repair, the complainant again paid Rs. 4478/- to the said Alekha Mahima Bike Centre. The Complainant in corroborating to the content of the complaint filed all the bills showing the payments made by her to the OP and the Alekha Mahima Bike Centre, Padmalaya Motors Honda. But the O.P. had not filed affidavit in support of their cases.

6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.P is negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant and the complainant sustained a lot of charges for the services by hired another bike centre to correct the Scooty. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

           7. So far as the compensation and cost of the case is concerned, we are convinced that the O.P failed to take any effective steps to short out the problem of the complainant for which the complainant has suffered physically and mentally. As such the complaint is entitled to get cost since she has incurred expenses attending the case. Under the above facts and circumstances, in our considered view, it will be just and proper to award compensation as well as cost in favour of the complainant.

8. In the result we direct the OP. to refund Rs.3420/- together with compensation of Rs.1500/- and litigation Cost of Rs.1000/-to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order, the Complainant is at liberty to recover the entire amount from the Opposite Party with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filling of the case i.e., 22.11.2021 till actual date of realization of the same is made under the Consumer Protection Act.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

PRONOUNCED ON: 06.06.2023.